Julianna Margulies on Billions

Anonymous
Anyone else barely recognize her???
Anonymous
I saw the preview and didn’t recognize her, either. She looks totally different. Is that plastic surgery??
Anonymous
It’s her eyes — that’s what looks different, although she doesn’t look pulled.
Anonymous
She is so so thin
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:She is so so thin


This plus the lacquered wig, ain't doing her any favors. She looks ancient. Not a viable love interest for Chuck Rhodes after Wendy at all!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She is so so thin


This plus the lacquered wig, ain't doing her any favors. She looks ancient. Not a viable love interest for Chuck Rhodes after Wendy at all!


Maggie Siff/Wendy is...meh. Don't see it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:She is so so thin


I’m the OP...I noticed how thin she is too...like painfully thin.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It’s her eyes — that’s what looks different, although she doesn’t look pulled.


OP again. I think she’s done an eyebrow lift and lots of botox but not necessarily a facelift. It was so disconcerting to see.

I think Wendy is so, so hot.
Anonymous
I just looked and Maggie is 45, Julianna is 53. Will be interesting to see if Maggie does the same “shape shifting” in the next 8 years
Anonymous
Gorgeous woman
Anonymous
No? I knew right away that was her. She has a very distinct look, and that hasn't changed.

You're just trying to point out that she's aged, without actually coming out and saying it lest you get roasted.
Anonymous
I haven't seen the episode/s but Googling, it looks like filler to me.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:She is so so thin

I misread the thread title and thought it was “Julianna Margulies on Bulimia,” and I thought, well, that makes sense.
Anonymous
She looks the same. Did you not watch the Good Wife? She's aging and perhaps a little too much filler in the cheeks, but really pretty consistent.
Anonymous
It's a shame, because I always thought she was so beautiful!
post reply Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture
Message Quick Reply
Go to: